Home ranges, habitat and body mass: simple correlates of home range size in ungulates

Abstract

The spatial scale of animal space use, e.g. measured as individual home range size, is a key trait with important implications for ecological and evolutionary processes as well as management and conservation of populations and ecosystems. Explaining variation in home range size has therefore received great attention in ecological research. However, few studies have examined multiple hypotheses simultaneously, which is important provided the complex interactions between life history, social system and behaviour. Here, we review previous studies on home range size in ungulates, supplementing with a meta-analysis, to assess how differences in habitat use and species characteristics affect the relationship between body mass and home range size. Habitat type was the main factor explaining interspecific differences in home range size after accounting for species body mass and group size. Species using open habitats had larger home ranges for a given body mass than species using closed habitats, whereas species in open habitats showed a much weaker allometric relationship compared with species living in closed habitats. We found no support for relationships between home range size and species diet or mating system, or any sexual differences. These patterns suggest that the spatial scale of animal movement mainly is a combined effect of body mass, group size and the landscape structure. Accordingly, landscape management must acknowledge the influence of spatial distribution of habitat types on animal behaviour to ensure natural processes affecting demography and viability of ungulate populations.

Variation in range size and dispersal capabilities of microbial taxa

“…, Ofstad et al. ). Finally, closely related taxa often have similar geographic range sizes due to shared ecological attributes, as shown for species of birds (Mouillot and Gaston , Herrera‐Alsina and Villegas‐Patraca ).…”

Use, selection, and home range properties: complex patterns of individual habitat utilization

“…, Main , Ofstad et al. ). However, the behavioral mechanisms behind these differences are often unclear.…”

“…Males have larger energetic needs than females (Ofstad et al. ), and due to their smaller sizes, females and calves should be less able to utilize lower‐quality forage (Müller et al. ).…”

“…For example, females with offspring tend to maximize offspring survival and exhibit lower use of high-quality resources than males, if such resources are associated with higher mortality risk (White and Berger 2001). As a consequence, males and females often have different habitat use, home range size, and composition (Conner et al 1999, Main 2008, Ofstad et al 2016). However, the behavioral mechanisms behind these differences are often unclear.…”

“…To do so, we first assessed the relationship between home range size and composition. Males have larger energetic needs than females (Ofstad et al 2016), and due to their smaller sizes, females and calves should be less able to utilize lower-quality forage (M€ uller et al 2013). Accordingly, with regard to home range properties, we predict females to have smaller home ranges and show a weaker relationship between home range composition and size.…”